Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robert Williams

Why carrying a gun is a truly civilized act.

Rate this topic

23 posts in this topic

Reason vs. Force: Why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By JEFFREY W. KILGO, LTC, U.S. Army, Instructor U.S. Army CGSC, DJIMO

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reasonand force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice ofeither convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding underthreat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those twocategories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusivelyinteract through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method ofsocial interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menuis the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You haveto use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negateyour threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weaponthat puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, anda single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys withbaseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the sourceof bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be morecivilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makesit easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is onlytrue if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either bychoice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of amugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning ofarms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, andthat's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even anarmed one, can only make a successful living in a society where thestate has granted him a force monopoly.

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontationslethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is

fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations arewon by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury onthe loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don'tconstitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatingsand come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gunmakes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. Thegun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarianas it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work aswell as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for afight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side

means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it becauseI'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit

the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only theactions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from theequation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in NJ.........the NJ statutes state that one cannot use deadly force while protecting ones personal property....ie. tangible items. You can only use the level of force one is being subjected to or on the individual.

 

Also, if deadly force is used........even if justified.....the state takes the position that one must defend his actions to the state prosecutors and judge even if he is in the right defending his actions taken in a court of law.

 

In theory defending himself against the intruder and the State of NJ.....

 

Go figure......headscratch.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F...K NJ

View PostHere in NJ.........the NJ statutes state that one cannot use deadly force while protecting ones personal property....ie. tangible items. You can only use the level of force one is being subjected to or on the individual.

 

Also, if deadly force is used........even if justified.....the state takes the position that one must defend his actions to the state prosecutors and judge even if he is in the right defending his actions taken in a court of law.

 

In theory defending himself against the intruder and the State of NJ.....

 

Go figure......headscratch.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 37 years of law enforcement experience and I totally agree with the licensed carry of a concealed weapon. I don't agree with the use of deadly physical force, translated shooting someone, over the theft of property and would never do so.

 

I do agree with the use of a firearm to counter the threat of immediate deadly physical force toward me or a member of my family. To me, a hammer, a baseball bat, knife, tire iron and gun all fall into that category and no jury in the world would ever convict someone of over reacting in that sort of situation. Why else would you take someone's life?

 

BTW, I lived in NY before NJ and if you shot someone and took his life, it was considered a homicide and you would have to be able to be smart enough to show it was justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post If both are armed, the field is level. Thegun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarianas it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

 

I don't know about this statement. This is assuming a 75 year old woman knows fully how to handle a gun and has lighting fast reflexes. If someone were to mug her in a dark alley by pulling out their own gun, do you think the 75 year old woman would be able to defend herself looking down the barrel of a pistol wielded by a 22 year old gang banger?

 

This statement would hold if both pulled out their guns at the same time, i.e. a duel, but that's just not the case in reality. In an armed confrontation, I would say that whoever pulled out their gun first would be the victor, in most cases. This does not apply in a non-confrontation, such as you hearing an intruder break into your home ( who is armed ) and you pull out your gun to defend life and property, while you have the advantage of knowing your way around and can properly ambush the intruder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

The very reason arms were invented in the first place...and appreciated! The next argument you hear about carrying concealed; ask them if their wife is being raped, do they want you to stand by and watch and call 911, or use the gentle persuader under your belt? Then see what answer you get....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostHere in NJ.........the NJ statutes state that one cannot use deadly force while protecting ones personal property....ie. tangible items. You can only use the level of force one is being subjected to or on the individual.

 

Also, if deadly force is used........even if justified.....the state takes the position that one must defend his actions to the state prosecutors and judge even if he is in the right defending his actions taken in a court of law.

 

In theory defending himself against the intruder and the State of NJ.....

 

Go figure......headscratch.gif

 

 

 

"He said he was going to kill me!" If you are going to shoot him, empty the entire magizine, and tell the responders you shot until the threat was gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostHis argument might have more validity if he did a 'spell check' or had someone help with his punctuation.shaky.gif

 

There appears to have been a formatting error when the article was copied and pasted, causing some of the spacing to be removed....

 

Here, I fixed it for ya. wink.gif

 

View PostReason vs. Force: Why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By JEFFREY W. KILGO, LTC, U.S. Army, Instructor U.S. Army CGSC, DJIMO

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is

fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side

means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit

the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI don't know about this statement. This is assuming a 75 year old woman knows fully how to handle a gun and has lighting fast reflexes. If someone were to mug her in a dark alley by pulling out their own gun, do you think the 75 year old woman would be able to defend herself looking down the barrel of a pistol wielded by a 22 year old gang banger?

 

This statement would hold if both pulled out their guns at the same time, i.e. a duel, but that's just not the case in reality. In an armed confrontation, I would say that whoever pulled out their gun first would be the victor, in most cases. This does not apply in a non-confrontation, such as you hearing an intruder break into your home ( who is armed ) and you pull out your gun to defend life and property, while you have the advantage of knowing your way around and can properly ambush the intruder.

 

 

 

What is a 75 year old lady doing in a dark alley frequented by gang bangers ?

 

The 75 year old lady didn't get to be that age by being stupid........ I highly doubt she would be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.